Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,000!!

[flemke]

tapereel said:

You can see very clearly that I said if you have a valid defence put if forward. You did and you seem to have been rightly acquitted.
The problem is that a technical defence like those forwarded in the OP case are not valid. I saw someone defend himself in a laser case on Friday claiming the speed was wrong because the image was wobbling. It wouldn't affect the speed. Even though the lay person seems to think that it is the case that the speed cannot be right in those circumstances, does it make it right that an acquittal follows? It can't can't be right that an acquittal comes from unreasonable doubt or ignorance...even worse from an expert who is paid to say it is reasonable.
If a defence is reasonable, use it, if not then disappointment may follow when you give an unreasonable defence a go.

I believe the issue most of us find concerning is not that someone who was going 101mph got a ticket, but rather that the Police/CPS appear to have tried to "make an example" of the situation by going to extremes in order to prove a point that should not have needed proving again.

As I wrote above, either the speed measuring device had been approved properly or it had not been. A proper approval should have comprised the ability to measure the speed of all road eligible vehicles including Audi R8s. The CPS should have used the type approval of the device to evidence its accuracy, without going to the ridiculous lengths of hiring a sports car, hiring an airfield, etc.

If the CPS were unable to rely on the type approval as prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the device, that must necessarily bring into doubt whether the device can be used to measure the speed of any vehicle, apart from the specific vehicles used by the manufacturer in its development.

This incident smells of the work of "Road Safety Support", whose first boss made an utter fool of himself with his bullyboy declaration: "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough.”


I'd like to get back to the one question which I did ask you, which I think you overlooked.

Without going into why you think wealthier drivers should receive extra punishment for dubiously challenging a valid prosecution, would you please address the issue that less wealthy drivers may find it financially impossible to make a valid challenge to a dubious prosecution?

Flemke said:

Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?

Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?

[Pete317]

Pistom said:

I only have one holiday home and it isn't even overseas

Oh you poor, poor creature!

I'll see if I can spare a half a loaf...

[agtlaw]

Pete317 said:

Pistom said:

I only have one holiday home and it isn't even overseas

Oh you poor, poor creature!

I'll see if I can spare a half a loaf...

Is there a justgiving page?

[Red Devil]

flemke said:

A fundamental tenet of our justice system is the presumption of innocence. In effecting that, we accept that, in order absolutely to minimise the number of innocent people who would be erroneously convicted, we must reluctantly allow enough scope for the guilty sometimes to slip through the net.

Blackstone's ten guilty men. A very old principle going back to Biblical times - Abraham (Genesis 18:32)

flemke said:

I believe the issue most of us find concerning is not that someone who was going 101mph got a ticket, but rather that the Police/CPS appear to have tried to "make an example" of the situation by going to extremes in order to prove a point that should not have needed proving again.

As I wrote above, either the speed measuring device had been approved properly or it had not been. A proper approval should have comprised the ability to measure the speed of all road eligible vehicles including Audi R8s. The CPS should have used the type approval of the device to evidence its accuracy, without going to the ridiculous lengths of hiring a sports car, hiring an airfield, etc.

If the CPS were unable to rely on the type approval as prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the device, that must necessarily bring into doubt whether the device can be used to measure the speed of any vehicle, apart from the specific vehicles used by the manufacturer in its development.

This incident smells of the work of "Road Safety Support", whose first boss made an utter fool of himself with his bullyboy declaration: "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough.”

Google Peter Barker who did just that. He took on the gentleman whom their web site trumpets as 'thought to be the most experienced professional witness in England today' and made him look silly. As well as the CPS who were determined to try and convict him by other highly dubious means. The DJ saw right through it and sent them packing. Not content with that the SCP then issued an inflammatory statement, after the case was thrown out, that he was 'clearly speeding'. They were forced into a humiliating public apology when he threatened legal action against them.

And all because the chap in the back office didn't do his job properly (the Gatso involved was operating outwith its HOTA which a proper secondary check would have shown). A little thing like that didn't stop the attack dogs trying to savage the victim though.

[tapereel]

flemke said:

I believe the issue most of us find concerning is not that someone who was going 101mph got a ticket, but rather that the Police/CPS appear to have tried to "make an example" of the situation by going to extremes in order to prove a point that should not have needed proving again.

As I wrote above, either the speed measuring device had been approved properly or it had not been. A proper approval should have comprised the ability to measure the speed of all road eligible vehicles including Audi R8s. The CPS should have used the type approval of the device to evidence its accuracy, without going to the ridiculous lengths of hiring a sports car, hiring an airfield, etc.

If the CPS were unable to rely on the type approval as prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the device, that must necessarily bring into doubt whether the device can be used to measure the speed of any vehicle, apart from the specific vehicles used by the manufacturer in its development.

This incident smells of the work of "Road Safety Support", whose first boss made an utter fool of himself with his bullyboy declaration: "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough.”


I'd like to get back to the one question which I did ask you, which I think you overlooked.

Without going into why you think wealthier drivers should receive extra punishment for dubiously challenging a valid prosecution, would you please address the issue that less wealthy drivers may find it financially impossible to make a valid challenge to a dubious prosecution?

Flemke said:

Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?

Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
The defendant employed the services of a Dr who put the weight of his experience and qualifications behind a statement that claimed the laser may have given the wrong speed because of the shape and construction of the rear of the car and may have obtained a speed from another object or vehicle.
Once the defence begin that sort of attack on the device that is Type Approved the crown are entitled to make whatever arrangements they need to answer the questions posed. That is why I have said the defence used what is an 'apparently' authoritative opinion that can be persuasive. Once that type of defence is entered you should be aware that costs may result. A responsible solicitor will advise as such.
Some sources of legal advice have a routine where they send in awkward questions in an attempt to get the CPS to drop a case made difficult by awkward questions only. When that tactic fails the next stage is to escalate the pressure with a template report from an expert witness.
It is perhaps not the intent of the defence solicitor that the case be progresses to court because if it does then it is likely that costs will be incurred that puts the defendant at risk of paying them.
You should be aware that the costs of a defence expert are normally paid from central funds, i.e. you and me. Maybe you can see that the defence expert's costs being paid from a central fund no matter what the court result, puts the CPS in a position where they have to consider their budget. The CPS will only recover the costs on conviction and even then are at the mercy of the court and the person convicted's ability to pay them.
If the defence expert has not assisted the court then those costs can be refused but it is for the CPS to apply for that and to convince the court that they should not be paid.
Does the equality of arms seem a little different now?
The CPS do rely on Type Approval but when it and the equipment is specifically attacked by a hired-gun why is it unreasonable to respond? The CPS had no doubt about the ability of the Type Approved device in this case; they simply chose to match and, may I say, trump the dubious expert advice offered up by the defence expert. The risk of recovery of the costs involved is higher for the crown than it is for the defendant as I have explained.
I have answered your question very specifically and do not intend to repeat myself in detail, I will say however, any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it.
In deciding if a prosecution case is dubious you should be very careful what advice you accept and the motivation for the advice you are receiving.

[tapereel]

Red Devil said:

Google Peter Barker who did just that. He took on the gentleman whom their web site trumpets as 'thought to be the most experienced professional witness in England today' and made him look silly. As well as the CPS who were determined to try and convict him by other highly dubious means. The DJ saw right through it and sent them packing. Not content with that the SCP then issued an inflammatory statement, after the case was thrown out, that he was 'clearly speeding'. They were forced into a humiliating public apology when he threatened legal action against them.

And all because the chap in the back office didn't do his job properly (the Gatso involved was operating outwith its HOTA which a proper secondary check would have shown). A little thing like that didn't stop the attack dogs trying to savage the victim though.

Peter Barker's case is a poor example.
The evidence from the Gatso was considered inadmissible because of the way the CPS had attempted to serve it. It was not inadmissible because it was incorrect.
Mr Barker had a defence that he believed in and was fortunate in the way the case turned out. Who knows how it would have turned out if the evidence was admitted. Well done to Mr Barker though I would say it is risky to use it as a model defence.

[tapereel]

agtlaw said:

Pete317 said:

Pistom said:

I only have one holiday home and it isn't even overseas

Oh you poor, poor creature!

I'll see if I can spare a half a loaf...

Is there a justgiving page?

[Ken Figenus]

Must have been a magistrate originally from Abersoch! Pick your battles springs to mind too...

[silentbrown]

tapereel said:

The evidence from the Gatso was considered inadmissible because of the way the CPS had attempted to serve it. It was not inadmissible because it was incorrect.

Can you back that up? Unless this article is 100% balls, the Gatso evidence was incorrect: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2651.asp

[Red Devil]

tapereel said:

Red Devil said:

Google Peter Barker who did just that. He took on the gentleman whom their web site trumpets as 'thought to be the most experienced professional witness in England today' and made him look silly. As well as the CPS who were determined to try and convict him by other highly dubious means. The DJ saw right through it and sent them packing. Not content with that the SCP then issued an inflammatory statement, after the case was thrown out, that he was 'clearly speeding'. They were forced into a humiliating public apology when he threatened legal action against them.

And all because the chap in the back office didn't do his job properly (the Gatso involved was operating outwith its HOTA which a proper secondary check would have shown). A little thing like that didn't stop the attack dogs trying to savage the victim though.

Peter Barker's case is a poor example.
The evidence from the Gatso was considered inadmissible because of the way the CPS had attempted to serve it. It was not inadmissible because it was incorrect.

Another of your self-serving statements. Who are you trying to kid? The fact is that the CPS agreed and admitted that the secondary check had over 10% difference from the primary check and so failed to satisfy the conditions to which the type approval order was subject. The importance of the 10% issue was something that the RSS's expert himself mentioned in his report. That the difference was in fact outwith the requited parameters was confirmed by a report from the TRL. When push came to shove the prosecution dropped the RSS man like a hot potato. So much for his vaunted reputation. It should have been discontinued at that point but RSS's vengeful spirit couldn't allow that. On top of that the bubble of its collective ego might burst.

tapereel said:

Mr Barker had a defence that he believed in and was fortunate in the way the case turned out. Who knows how it would have turned out if the evidence was admitted. Well done to Mr Barker though I would say it is risky to use it as a model defence.

Fortunate my a**e. Your speculation as to how it would have transpired if it had been admitted is just posturing. It was never going to fly, especially with DJ who wasn't in her dotage. The DJ's ruling on inadmissibility was in response to the CPS, having realised that it was in trouble, trying a novel, some might say highly questionable, approach to securing a conviction. She questioned the Prosecutor on why the photographs would be more reliable if they were adduced as real evidence but not via section 20. The DJ dryly observed "They would seem to be the same thing but apparently are reliable if adduced via one method but not by the other".

Unlike lay magistrates the judiciary have actually had legal training and are able to spot when the prosecution case is fatally flawed.

[flemke]

tapereel said:

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
The defendant employed the services of a Dr who put the weight of his experience and qualifications behind a statement that claimed the laser may have given the wrong speed because of the shape and construction of the rear of the car and may have obtained a speed from another object or vehicle.
Once the defence begin that sort of attack on the device that is Type Approved the crown are entitled to make whatever arrangements they need to answer the questions posed. That is why I have said the defence used what is an 'apparently' authoritative opinion that can be persuasive. Once that type of defence is entered you should be aware that costs may result. A responsible solicitor will advise as such.
Some sources of legal advice have a routine where they send in awkward questions in an attempt to get the CPS to drop a case made difficult by awkward questions only. When that tactic fails the next stage is to escalate the pressure with a template report from an expert witness.
It is perhaps not the intent of the defence solicitor that the case be progresses to court because if it does then it is likely that costs will be incurred that puts the defendant at risk of paying them.
You should be aware that the costs of a defence expert are normally paid from central funds, i.e. you and me. Maybe you can see that the defence expert's costs being paid from a central fund no matter what the court result, puts the CPS in a position where they have to consider their budget. The CPS will only recover the costs on conviction and even then are at the mercy of the court and the person convicted's ability to pay them.
If the defence expert has not assisted the court then those costs can be refused but it is for the CPS to apply for that and to convince the court that they should not be paid.
Does the equality of arms seem a little different now?
The CPS do rely on Type Approval but when it and the equipment is specifically attacked by a hired-gun why is it unreasonable to respond? The CPS had no doubt about the ability of the Type Approved device in this case; they simply chose to match and, may I say, trump the dubious expert advice offered up by the defence expert. The risk of recovery of the costs involved is higher for the crown than it is for the defendant as I have explained.
I have answered your question very specifically and do not intend to repeat myself in detail, I will say however, any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it.
In deciding if a prosecution case is dubious you should be very careful what advice you accept and the motivation for the advice you are receiving.

I am afraid that you continue to focus on the extreme example of the R8, whilst ignoring the real-world issues that I raised.

You assert loftily, "Any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it."

That's easy to say in your imaginary world, but far from easy to live by in the real world, in which the threat of losing £5,000 to the government agent that dares, "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough," is quite intimidating - which is precisely the effect intended by Hughes's thuggish threat.


With regard to your rationalisation of the Police/CPS actions in the R8 case, simply being allowed by legal convention to spend a stupid amount of money in response to a defence argument does not justify going ahead and spending that stupid amount of money.

As I wrote above, either the speed measurement device's type approval is valid or it is not. If that type approval is not sufficient in itself for the court to rely on, what was the point of the type approval?

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

Edited by flemke on Sunday 17th May 22:45

[tapereel]

flemke said:

I am afraid that you continue to focus on the extreme example of the R8, whilst ignoring the real-world issues that I raised.

You assert loftily, "Any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it."

That's easy to say in your imaginary world, but far from easy to live by in the real world, in which the threat of losing £5,000 to the government agent that dares, "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough," is quite intimidating - which is precisely the effect intended by Hughes's thuggish threat.


With regard to your rationalisation of the Police/CPS actions in the R8 case, simply being allowed by legal convention to spend a stupid amount of money in response to a defence argument does not justify going ahead and spending that stupid amount of money.

As I wrote above, either the speed measurement device's type approval is valid or it is not. If that type approval is not sufficient in itself for the court to rely on, what was the point of the type approval?

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

Edited by flemke on Sunday 17th May 22:45

I have no idea whether your world is real or imaginary or somewhere in between but I do hope you enjoy living there.

[silentbrown]

flemke said:

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

That argument's nonsense to me. If the type approval was accepted as 100% absolute guaranteed flawless, then no defence argument could ever be made against it. Would you prefer that?

Devices are made and operated by fallible humans. There are always edge cases where someone claims a device is unreliable because it wasn't tested under a specific combination of conditions X,Y and Z during the type approval process. If you claim that - despite type approval - it doesn't work on Tuesdays with a full moon, you've put the onus on the prosecution to prove that it does.

[tapereel]

Red Devil said:

Fortunate my a**e. Your speculation as to how it would have transpired if it had been admitted is just posturing. It was never going to fly, especially with DJ who wasn't in her dotage. The DJ's ruling on inadmissibility was in response to the CPS, having realised that it was in trouble, trying a novel, some might say highly questionable, approach to securing a conviction. She questioned the Prosecutor on why the photographs would be more reliable if they were adduced as real evidence but not via section 20. The DJ dryly observed "They would seem to be the same thing but apparently are reliable if adduced via one method but not by the other".

Unlike lay magistrates the judiciary have actually had legal training and are able to spot when the prosecution case is fatally flawed.

You have your opinion I have mine. I have measured the speeds and am comfortable with them. Admisibility was an issue and the speeds calculated were not at issue in that. Indeed as the images were deemed inadmissible the speeds calculated from them could not be considered by the court.
There was an error in service.

[flemke]

silentbrown said:

flemke said:

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

That argument's nonsense to me. If the type approval was accepted as 100% absolute guaranteed flawless, then no defence argument could ever be made against it. Would you prefer that?

Devices are made and operated by fallible humans. There are always edge cases where someone claims a device is unreliable because it wasn't tested under a specific combination of conditions X,Y and Z during the type approval process. If you claim that - despite type approval - it doesn't work on Tuesdays with a full moon, you've put the onus on the prosecution to prove that it does.

I may not have put it as well as I should have done.

Type approval has been given on the basis of certain protocols and tests. The protocols and tests are intended to certify accuracy beyond a reasonable doubt. If that were not the case, the authorities would have no business granting type approval. They cannot very well say, "We think this device usually works as intended."

If those protocols and tests were good enough to justify type approval, they should be good enough for the court. I am suggesting that the CPS should submit the documented basis for type approval as the primary evidence proving that the device gave an accurate reading.

If that is not sufficient evidence to persuade the court, then type approval ought not to have been given in the first place.

The burden of proof of accuracy should not be on either the driver or the CPS. It should have been on the device manufacturer and the approving authority in the first place. If they were not able to produce a foolproof device, the device should not have been granted type approval, or explicit limits on the device's use should have been imposed from the outset.

[flemke]

tapereel said:

flemke said:

I am afraid that you continue to focus on the extreme example of the R8, whilst ignoring the real-world issues that I raised.

You assert loftily, "Any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it."

That's easy to say in your imaginary world, but far from easy to live by in the real world, in which the threat of losing £5,000 to the government agent that dares, "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough," is quite intimidating - which is precisely the effect intended by Hughes's thuggish threat.


With regard to your rationalisation of the Police/CPS actions in the R8 case, simply being allowed by legal convention to spend a stupid amount of money in response to a defence argument does not justify going ahead and spending that stupid amount of money.

As I wrote above, either the speed measurement device's type approval is valid or it is not. If that type approval is not sufficient in itself for the court to rely on, what was the point of the type approval?

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

Edited by flemke on Sunday 17th May 22:45

I have no idea whether your world is real or imaginary or somewhere in between but I do hope you enjoy living there.

My world works for me, thanks.

One of the good things about it is that my job does not prejudice the opinions I express here on PH.

[tapereel]

flemke said:

tapereel said:

flemke said:

I am afraid that you continue to focus on the extreme example of the R8, whilst ignoring the real-world issues that I raised.

You assert loftily, "Any defendant with a valid defence should have the courage of their convictions and use it."

That's easy to say in your imaginary world, but far from easy to live by in the real world, in which the threat of losing £5,000 to the government agent that dares, "Come and get us if you think you are hard enough," is quite intimidating - which is precisely the effect intended by Hughes's thuggish threat.


With regard to your rationalisation of the Police/CPS actions in the R8 case, simply being allowed by legal convention to spend a stupid amount of money in response to a defence argument does not justify going ahead and spending that stupid amount of money.

As I wrote above, either the speed measurement device's type approval is valid or it is not. If that type approval is not sufficient in itself for the court to rely on, what was the point of the type approval?

It is a contradiction in terms for the authorities to give a measuring device type approval for comprehensive road use but then to allow that the device may not be accurate for all road vehicles.
Having thus contradicted itself, to expect the public to fund further specific testing is adding insult to injury.

Edited by flemke on Sunday 17th May 22:45

I have no idea whether your world is real or imaginary or somewhere in between but I do hope you enjoy living there.

My world works for me, thanks.

One of the good things about it is that my job does not prejudice the opinions I express here on PH.

Neither does mine...so that's nice.

[Devil2575]

Vaud said:

Pistom said:

My next point is a contradiction. £11K even to me (and I'm quite poor) is not a massive amount of money so if the dhead defendant is a millionaire I doubt he will lose sleep.

If he has a holiday home in Abersoch and drives regularly on that stretch of the A55, he should have known where the mobile traps are. I have a holiday home in the area, I drive along the same stretch of A55, know exactly which point he will have been done at. I often go through that point at 78mph and see the the pigs at the trough there about half a dozen times a year. They have never bothered me. The A55 is one of the most predictable roads for knowing where and when the filth will be out. Is the defendant blind as well as stupid?

If you have a holiday home, then sorry, you are not "quite poor"

Indeed. Quite well off i'd say.

Quite poor would be, can't afford a holiday most years and if a big bill comes in struggle pay it